Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's linguistic profiling, and it's the only reasonable way to enforce the export law.

Only if you are being a completely stupid and bigoted bastard. Otherwise the only sane way to enforce an export law if you are a company, is to not deliver items to that country.

Everything outside that is up to governmental customs and border control and no court would enforce not selling IPads to Americans who are born in Iran and speak Farsi. Otherwise it is nothing less than apartheid.

The policy quoted states:

the exportation, sale or supply from the U.S. to Iran of any Apple goods is strictly prohibited without authorization by the U.S. government.

It does not say you are not allowed to sell them to people who speak Farsi, even if they were born in Iran. It just says that Apple is not allowed to send them out of the country. You could possibly also claim that you are not allowed to sell directly to current Iranian citizens, as they could be said to represent Iran, although this would still be reasonably open to question, especially if they have a green card, which are available to current Iranian citizens.



No the law says you are guilty of a federal crime if you SUSPECT that the sale would violate an export restriction.

If two white guys with snow on their boots ask "how much for the nucular wessels" you aren't to sell to them.


Selling something to someone in a shop who can speak in a language other than english and who was born somewhere else doesn't qualify as suspicion of violating an export restriction, unless you have such appallingly lousy pattern recognition that you really shouldn't be working in a shop in the first place, or in extreme cases, even be allowed out without supervision just in case you get run over while talking to a tree because you thought it was the local dentist as the leaves were the same shade of green as his favourite hat.

[edit] also, ipads, while shiny, are not of the same export class as 'nucular wessels'. I think this might be that pattern recognition problem we've been talking about. Have you been remembering to take your pills at the right time?


Um from the article The iPad was to be a gift for her cousin who lives in Iran

In other words they were actually going to break export restrictions. Perhaps they accidentally mentioned this to the Apple associate, but not to the reporter? Because "I'm getting this for my cousin in Iran" may sound innocent but would actually force the associate to not sell the item.


She said she was buying it for her Iranian friend - that's enough to reasonably suspect.

ps. The state dept doesn't do reasonable - check the small print you need to agree to before downloading something as potentially lethal as a Dell mouse driver.


  She said she was buying it for her Iranian friend - that's 
  enough to reasonably suspect.
No, that's reason to inform them that they are not allowed to do that. Tell them they would be breaking the law if they did that and could go to jail. If they insist on buying the item, it is out of your hands. If they still explicitly acknowledge they are intent on breaking the law, you may be required to inform the feds, but that's it.


I would reasonably suspect that the person might need a phone while they are studying here. Your view of the law seems to be that it is something dictated over you, rather than something we all make up, mostly in court.


My view of the law is:

p(get caught) * p(jury will believe excuse) * f(society thinks offense is serious) * f(punishment)

Consider:

1: I though I could park here

2: She looked 18

3: Whats so bad about exporting restricted technology to Iran?


Where:

* Get caught = a

* jury will believe excuse = b

* society thinks offense is serious = c

* punishment = d

Therefore provide formuala for p(a), p(b), p(c) and p(d).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: